The article doesn't spend much time on how thoroughly the existence and requirement for undergarments depends on temperate climates. People in hotter climes wear loose, lighter garments in easily...
The article doesn't spend much time on how thoroughly the existence and requirement for undergarments depends on temperate climates.
People in hotter climes wear loose, lighter garments in easily washable materials. Those garments generally don't cling to the skin as tightly as heavy knitted and woven itchy woolens. They wear dhoti, loincloths, skirts, djellaba, sarongs, etc. or practice near nudity with just a cache-sexe, which hides but doesn't enclose genitalia.
There's a less gendered and more international history of underwear here. It's clear there's always been an interplay of garments worn as underwear vs. outerwear, with class, tradition, and religion playing roles in what's worn under the visible.
I'm kind of rabbitholing on the garment engineering involved in men's underwear. It turns out that the jockstrap was invented in the 1870's to save men from the excruciating scrotal hammering caused by bicycle wheels bouncing over cobblestoned streets. I think I showed an unhealthy interest in the "Ball Hammock" display at a menswear store I accompanied my spouse to, but it was asking for it.
I have borrowed both boxers and boxer briefs from my spouse. Boxers are comfy under looser-fitted men's cut pants or skirts, but bunch up in close-fitted womenswear. I'm contemplating switching from women's underwear to boxer briefs (or in womenswear, "boyshorts", which differ from men's underwear in lacking a Y-front opening) because of the wider, tighter elastic waistband. Women's underwear generally has a narrow, relatively loose elastic band at the waist because it relies on projecting hipbones and estrogen-based fat distribution to help hold the garment up. I'm running a little more boy-shaped these days, and the women's design isn't always staying put.
honestly I say go for the switch to boxer briefs. They really were just a straight-up upgrade over women's underwear for me in all matters except wearing a pad (and even that, I've been able to...
honestly I say go for the switch to boxer briefs. They really were just a straight-up upgrade over women's underwear for me in all matters except wearing a pad (and even that, I've been able to finagle in the past, just less easily). I haven't compared boxer briefs for men and boyshorts for women directly though, so I can't speak to how big a difference any differences between them makes.
Boyshorts can have the same elastic rolling and falling down issues (ignoring something more like TomboyX) but do have enough gusset for a pad. They also tend to have a shorter leg - though I've...
Boyshorts can have the same elastic rolling and falling down issues (ignoring something more like TomboyX) but do have enough gusset for a pad. They also tend to have a shorter leg - though I've seen men's underwear of a similar shorts length, often in queer spaces.
I personally really prefer longer legs on my underwear, actually -- I usually wear full-on boxers these days, after all -- but with boxer briefs the legs are usually short enough to roll up the...
I personally really prefer longer legs on my underwear, actually -- I usually wear full-on boxers these days, after all -- but with boxer briefs the legs are usually short enough to roll up the inside ones and snap a pad with wings on if absolutely necessary . It's far from ideal but if you don't have any better underwear options, it works. I never really figured out a way to make a pad work with normal boxers though.
I think regular boxers just don't work because there's no gusset. But yeah idk I may try boxer briefs myself because I'm very tired of the underwear rolling down while the pants stay up or vice...
I think regular boxers just don't work because there's no gusset.
But yeah idk I may try boxer briefs myself because I'm very tired of the underwear rolling down while the pants stay up or vice versa. I have zero hips.
The ones I'm looking at are more like bike shorts (Woxer is the brand, not quite as expensive as TomboyX, different cuts and colors), with a higher waist and longer inseam. So hopefully no rolling...
The ones I'm looking at are more like bike shorts (Woxer is the brand, not quite as expensive as TomboyX, different cuts and colors), with a higher waist and longer inseam. So hopefully no rolling issues and maybe enough compression to smooth out the hip replacement divots. I'd always used a Diva cup; pads weren't an issue for me, and I've aged out of that necessity anyway. But I've always wondered how the heck some of the typical women's underwear (and pants) cuts could accommodate a pad.
Based on experience with spouse's boxer briefs, I probably still need a women's cut. I'm on the curvy side with an 11" difference in waist and hip measurements. [I say I'm "boy-shaped" because I'm...
Based on experience with spouse's boxer briefs, I probably still need a women's cut. I'm on the curvy side with an 11" difference in waist and hip measurements. [I say I'm "boy-shaped" because I'm very much an inverted triangle with swimmer shoulders.] That's in between women's standard sizes, so the waist is too loose for hips that fit, and the men's sizes go by waist measurement only. I'm hoping that the boxer briefs' heavier waistband will make it work.
I am similarly quite curvy (and have had a lot of annoyances shopping for men's jeans due to this), but I don't personally have much trouble with boxer briefs on that front because of the elastic...
I am similarly quite curvy (and have had a lot of annoyances shopping for men's jeans due to this), but I don't personally have much trouble with boxer briefs on that front because of the elastic and otherwise stretchy fabric. I err on the side of larger sizes and it always seems to work fine -- the elastic on the pairs I own isn't so weak that I've ever had a problem there. I also don't wear my boxer briefs super high, so my hip measurement tends to be the only relevant one. But I've also never bought women's underwear that specified anything more detailed than a single S/M/L size, much less separate indicators for hips and waist, so maybe we're in different realms when it comes to underwear shopping!
There’s the context here that this is the V&A, writing what seems to be rather clearly implicitly meant to be a history from a British or perhaps even primarily English perspective. At some point...
The article doesn't spend much time on how thoroughly the existence and requirement for undergarments depends on temperate climates.
There’s the context here that this is the V&A, writing what seems to be rather clearly implicitly meant to be a history from a British or perhaps even primarily English perspective. At some point they even point out an innovation (from a British context) that was essentially just taking a French fashion.
I don't understand why any men wear any underwear types except for boxer briefs/trunks. If there's anyone here who wears regular boxers or especially briefs, could you please explain what the...
I don't understand why any men wear any underwear types except for boxer briefs/trunks. If there's anyone here who wears regular boxers or especially briefs, could you please explain what the point of them is?
For a long time I wore regular boxers but once I switched to stretchy boxer briefs, I'll never go back. They're roomier and less restrictive and more comfortable than briefs, but feel better than...
For a long time I wore regular boxers but once I switched to stretchy boxer briefs, I'll never go back. They're roomier and less restrictive and more comfortable than briefs, but feel better than the "shorts under pants" feeling of boxers. Really feels like the best of both worlds
I feel so much more flexible / comfortable wearing them and should have been wearing them the whole time. I realize I could have avoided a lot of discomfort for years, especially when I was young.
I'll echo the sentiment that there was a lot of weird social/peer pressure around this type of thing- for me, particularly when I was growing up
Yeah the idea of wearing "tighty whitey" briefs was a joke/insult in itself. Having your underwear accidentally exposed could be embarrassing regardless, but wearing boxers seemed to be the safest...
Yeah the idea of wearing "tighty whitey" briefs was a joke/insult in itself. Having your underwear accidentally exposed could be embarrassing regardless, but wearing boxers seemed to be the safest choice to avoid ridicule.
Now I mostly wear boxer briefs too. The whole thing is laughable but also interesting to look back on.
After Donald Glover in Mr and Mrs Smith was rocking black briefs, I got some and I’ll never go back to trunks. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NUnXxh5U25Y
After Donald Glover in Mr and Mrs Smith was rocking black briefs, I got some and I’ll never go back to trunks.
I wore boxers in the 90s, because briefs were "for little boys" and men's pants were baggy enough that wearing a light set of shorts under your pants wasn't bulky and silly. They also were notably...
I wore boxers in the 90s, because briefs were "for little boys" and men's pants were baggy enough that wearing a light set of shorts under your pants wasn't bulky and silly. They also were notably more airy in the groin, which was generally nice. Once pants grew tighter around the groin, boxers were inconvenient, and boxer briefs kept everything compact while still making sure my thighs never chafed or stuck together.
I prefer regular boxers tbh, but I don't have the relevant "equipment" down there, so it doesn't have anything to do with that part of it (and I usually have plenty of room in the groin on my...
I prefer regular boxers tbh, but I don't have the relevant "equipment" down there, so it doesn't have anything to do with that part of it (and I usually have plenty of room in the groin on my pants as a result, so there's no real difference visible to the outside world when I'm wearing pants). The type of fabric they're made of tends to be comfier imo (at least among the pairs I own). I also like the way they feel around where my legs meet my pelvis, insofar as they don't touch there at all. I've never worn men's briefs, but women's underwear had the problem of being too tight on the legholes, which was extremely uncomfortable. Boxer briefs don't generally do the same thing unless you're getting ones that are way too small, but they still tend to bunch up around that area a little, and not having any material there is comfier. But the difference isn't stark enough that I threw out my boxer briefs after switching to boxers, so I still wear both.
It is also nice to be able to answer the door when the amazon guy rings the bell without putting on pants. The level of acceptability in doing that, especially when most people read me as a woman, is wildly different between wearing boxers vs boxer briefs. This doesn't really factor into my decision, but it is a bonus.
My mother recently noticed that they're selling boxer briefs in the women's section at Kohl's now. Not full-on boxers afaik, though.
I wish the TomboyX boxers and boyshorts were more affordable, they get rave reviews and they're cute. Posting for NB and trans folks, they have styles specifically designed for tucking and packing.
I wish the TomboyX boxers and boyshorts were more affordable, they get rave reviews and they're cute. Posting for NB and trans folks, they have styles specifically designed for tucking and packing.
For EU-based trans+ folks, I can safely recommend the Polish shops "iguanatrend" and "binderme" for functional underwear for tucking or packing. They might not have fancy designs like tomboyx -...
For EU-based trans+ folks, I can safely recommend the Polish shops "iguanatrend" and "binderme" for functional underwear for tucking or packing. They might not have fancy designs like tomboyx - they're just plain single-colour underwear - but they're more affordable and they're pretty good quality in my opinion.
--
For tucking specifically, I've especially found binderme's gaffs to be super good, but then again, people also use regular shapewear for that, and those are a lot more affordable than even those.
ooh saving this link for when I have money and am more interested in packing. As far as boxers go, when not trying to pack or needing to wear a pad, I just have a bunch from uniqlo.
ooh saving this link for when I have money and am more interested in packing. As far as boxers go, when not trying to pack or needing to wear a pad, I just have a bunch from uniqlo.
They all have different advantages and disadvantages. Boxer-briefs are a versatile compromise of properties. Boxers do not need to be made of a stretch fabric, with the exception of the waistband,...
They all have different advantages and disadvantages. Boxer-briefs are a versatile compromise of properties.
Boxers do not need to be made of a stretch fabric, with the exception of the waistband, and more traditional makers sell them in pure cotton and linen. They can be more breathable and last longer. I’ve worn out considerably more boxer briefs and briefs than boxers; in the same time that the fabric of some boxer briefs might completely wear out, boxers from the same maker can still look largely new (the comparison here is mostly with Sunspel, which makes both traditional and more modern underwear, but across different makers Mazarin (only traditional) and Hanro (only stretch) I've had the same experience; none of these are fast fashion / cheaply made, and they are all comparable price points.). They can also be more comfortable, in not really pushing on anything at all except the waistband. For me, in many circumstances, since my shirt tails are already in a similar area and my trouser fabric is thick or stiff enough, there is no little benefit to the cleaner lines allowed by boxer briefs.
In cases where visible lines could be a problem, briefs can work better than boxer briefs, as they move the edges of the fabric more toward areas that are unlikely to make visible impressions through clothes.
In the winter when in colder regions, I tend to wear full length wool underwear, which to me is the easiest way of adapting clothes to colder weather. These have obvious and completely different advantages. Modern ones with some stretch also, with the exception of the added bulk, have very little effect on trousers.
It’s possible to get briefs that feel great, aren’t restrictive, and look good (though admittedly these don’t seem to be standard). I used to prefer boxer briefs, but I started getting some tinea...
It’s possible to get briefs that feel great, aren’t restrictive, and look good (though admittedly these don’t seem to be standard).
I used to prefer boxer briefs, but I started getting some tinea flare-ups on my thighs, and switching to briefs helped immensely.
The article doesn't spend much time on how thoroughly the existence and requirement for undergarments depends on temperate climates.
People in hotter climes wear loose, lighter garments in easily washable materials. Those garments generally don't cling to the skin as tightly as heavy knitted and woven itchy woolens. They wear dhoti, loincloths, skirts, djellaba, sarongs, etc. or practice near nudity with just a cache-sexe, which hides but doesn't enclose genitalia.
There's a less gendered and more international history of underwear here. It's clear there's always been an interplay of garments worn as underwear vs. outerwear, with class, tradition, and religion playing roles in what's worn under the visible.
I'm kind of rabbitholing on the garment engineering involved in men's underwear. It turns out that the jockstrap was invented in the 1870's to save men from the excruciating scrotal hammering caused by bicycle wheels bouncing over cobblestoned streets. I think I showed an unhealthy interest in the "Ball Hammock" display at a menswear store I accompanied my spouse to, but it was asking for it.
I have borrowed both boxers and boxer briefs from my spouse. Boxers are comfy under looser-fitted men's cut pants or skirts, but bunch up in close-fitted womenswear. I'm contemplating switching from women's underwear to boxer briefs (or in womenswear, "boyshorts", which differ from men's underwear in lacking a Y-front opening) because of the wider, tighter elastic waistband. Women's underwear generally has a narrow, relatively loose elastic band at the waist because it relies on projecting hipbones and estrogen-based fat distribution to help hold the garment up. I'm running a little more boy-shaped these days, and the women's design isn't always staying put.
honestly I say go for the switch to boxer briefs. They really were just a straight-up upgrade over women's underwear for me in all matters except wearing a pad (and even that, I've been able to finagle in the past, just less easily). I haven't compared boxer briefs for men and boyshorts for women directly though, so I can't speak to how big a difference any differences between them makes.
Boyshorts can have the same elastic rolling and falling down issues (ignoring something more like TomboyX) but do have enough gusset for a pad. They also tend to have a shorter leg - though I've seen men's underwear of a similar shorts length, often in queer spaces.
I personally really prefer longer legs on my underwear, actually -- I usually wear full-on boxers these days, after all -- but with boxer briefs the legs are usually short enough to roll up the inside ones and snap a pad with wings on if absolutely necessary . It's far from ideal but if you don't have any better underwear options, it works. I never really figured out a way to make a pad work with normal boxers though.
I think regular boxers just don't work because there's no gusset.
But yeah idk I may try boxer briefs myself because I'm very tired of the underwear rolling down while the pants stay up or vice versa. I have zero hips.
The ones I'm looking at are more like bike shorts (Woxer is the brand, not quite as expensive as TomboyX, different cuts and colors), with a higher waist and longer inseam. So hopefully no rolling issues and maybe enough compression to smooth out the hip replacement divots. I'd always used a Diva cup; pads weren't an issue for me, and I've aged out of that necessity anyway. But I've always wondered how the heck some of the typical women's underwear (and pants) cuts could accommodate a pad.
Based on experience with spouse's boxer briefs, I probably still need a women's cut. I'm on the curvy side with an 11" difference in waist and hip measurements. [I say I'm "boy-shaped" because I'm very much an inverted triangle with swimmer shoulders.] That's in between women's standard sizes, so the waist is too loose for hips that fit, and the men's sizes go by waist measurement only. I'm hoping that the boxer briefs' heavier waistband will make it work.
I am similarly quite curvy (and have had a lot of annoyances shopping for men's jeans due to this), but I don't personally have much trouble with boxer briefs on that front because of the elastic and otherwise stretchy fabric. I err on the side of larger sizes and it always seems to work fine -- the elastic on the pairs I own isn't so weak that I've ever had a problem there. I also don't wear my boxer briefs super high, so my hip measurement tends to be the only relevant one. But I've also never bought women's underwear that specified anything more detailed than a single S/M/L size, much less separate indicators for hips and waist, so maybe we're in different realms when it comes to underwear shopping!
There’s the context here that this is the V&A, writing what seems to be rather clearly implicitly meant to be a history from a British or perhaps even primarily English perspective. At some point they even point out an innovation (from a British context) that was essentially just taking a French fashion.
I don't understand why any men wear any underwear types except for boxer briefs/trunks. If there's anyone here who wears regular boxers or especially briefs, could you please explain what the point of them is?
I like boxers because they don't squish me where I don't want to be squished.
For a long time I wore regular boxers but once I switched to stretchy boxer briefs, I'll never go back. They're roomier and less restrictive and more comfortable than briefs, but feel better than the "shorts under pants" feeling of boxers. Really feels like the best of both worlds
I feel so much more flexible / comfortable wearing them and should have been wearing them the whole time. I realize I could have avoided a lot of discomfort for years, especially when I was young.
I'll echo the sentiment that there was a lot of weird social/peer pressure around this type of thing- for me, particularly when I was growing up
Yeah the idea of wearing "tighty whitey" briefs was a joke/insult in itself. Having your underwear accidentally exposed could be embarrassing regardless, but wearing boxers seemed to be the safest choice to avoid ridicule.
Now I mostly wear boxer briefs too. The whole thing is laughable but also interesting to look back on.
After Donald Glover in Mr and Mrs Smith was rocking black briefs, I got some and I’ll never go back to trunks.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NUnXxh5U25Y
I wore boxers in the 90s, because briefs were "for little boys" and men's pants were baggy enough that wearing a light set of shorts under your pants wasn't bulky and silly. They also were notably more airy in the groin, which was generally nice. Once pants grew tighter around the groin, boxers were inconvenient, and boxer briefs kept everything compact while still making sure my thighs never chafed or stuck together.
I prefer regular boxers tbh, but I don't have the relevant "equipment" down there, so it doesn't have anything to do with that part of it (and I usually have plenty of room in the groin on my pants as a result, so there's no real difference visible to the outside world when I'm wearing pants). The type of fabric they're made of tends to be comfier imo (at least among the pairs I own). I also like the way they feel around where my legs meet my pelvis, insofar as they don't touch there at all. I've never worn men's briefs, but women's underwear had the problem of being too tight on the legholes, which was extremely uncomfortable. Boxer briefs don't generally do the same thing unless you're getting ones that are way too small, but they still tend to bunch up around that area a little, and not having any material there is comfier. But the difference isn't stark enough that I threw out my boxer briefs after switching to boxers, so I still wear both.
It is also nice to be able to answer the door when the amazon guy rings the bell without putting on pants. The level of acceptability in doing that, especially when most people read me as a woman, is wildly different between wearing boxers vs boxer briefs. This doesn't really factor into my decision, but it is a bonus.
My mother recently noticed that they're selling boxer briefs in the women's section at Kohl's now. Not full-on boxers afaik, though.
I wish the TomboyX boxers and boyshorts were more affordable, they get rave reviews and they're cute. Posting for NB and trans folks, they have styles specifically designed for tucking and packing.
For EU-based trans+ folks, I can safely recommend the Polish shops "iguanatrend" and "binderme" for functional underwear for tucking or packing. They might not have fancy designs like tomboyx - they're just plain single-colour underwear - but they're more affordable and they're pretty good quality in my opinion.
--
For tucking specifically, I've especially found binderme's gaffs to be super good, but then again, people also use regular shapewear for that, and those are a lot more affordable than even those.
ooh saving this link for when I have money and am more interested in packing. As far as boxers go, when not trying to pack or needing to wear a pad, I just have a bunch from uniqlo.
I wear regular boxers, because I like them. I don't like briefs and I don't like boxer briefs.
They all have different advantages and disadvantages. Boxer-briefs are a versatile compromise of properties.
Boxers do not need to be made of a stretch fabric, with the exception of the waistband, and more traditional makers sell them in pure cotton and linen. They can be more breathable and last longer. I’ve worn out considerably more boxer briefs and briefs than boxers; in the same time that the fabric of some boxer briefs might completely wear out, boxers from the same maker can still look largely new (the comparison here is mostly with Sunspel, which makes both traditional and more modern underwear, but across different makers Mazarin (only traditional) and Hanro (only stretch) I've had the same experience; none of these are fast fashion / cheaply made, and they are all comparable price points.). They can also be more comfortable, in not really pushing on anything at all except the waistband. For me, in many circumstances, since my shirt tails are already in a similar area and my trouser fabric is thick or stiff enough, there is no little benefit to the cleaner lines allowed by boxer briefs.
In cases where visible lines could be a problem, briefs can work better than boxer briefs, as they move the edges of the fabric more toward areas that are unlikely to make visible impressions through clothes.
In the winter when in colder regions, I tend to wear full length wool underwear, which to me is the easiest way of adapting clothes to colder weather. These have obvious and completely different advantages. Modern ones with some stretch also, with the exception of the added bulk, have very little effect on trousers.
It’s possible to get briefs that feel great, aren’t restrictive, and look good (though admittedly these don’t seem to be standard).
I used to prefer boxer briefs, but I started getting some tinea flare-ups on my thighs, and switching to briefs helped immensely.
I want fabric there so stuff doesn't stick together
Ha!
Brief.